Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : G.L.GUPTA
PAPPU AND BALWANT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 119 Of 1998
Decided On : 08/25/1999
RAPE - IPC SECTION 376 - FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES - EVIDENCE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - CONSENT - AGE OF PROSECUTRIX - LINK EVIDENCE - FSL REPORT - CONVICTION UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for an incident that occurred on August 16, 1992. The victim, "S", was 13 years old at the time of the incident. The appellant allegedly caught hold of her, flung her on the ground, and committed rape on her at pistol point. The victim's father lodged a first information report (FIR) on August 17, 1992.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim's testimony was credible and reliable. There was no evidence to suggest that she had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The court also found that the medical evidence, while not conclusive, did not contradict the victim's testimony. The court further found that the delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained by the prosecution.
Issues: 1. Whether the victim's testimony was credible and reliable. 2. Whether the medical evidence corroborated the victim's testimony. 3. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution's case. 4. Whether the appellant's defense of consent was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the victim's testimony was credible and reliable because there was no evidence to suggest that she had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The court also found that her testimony was consistent with the other evidence in the case. 2. The court held that the medical evidence, while not conclusive, did not contradict the victim's testimony. The court noted that the medical officer did not find any injuries on the victim's private parts, but this did not necessarily mean that rape had not occurred. 3. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained by the prosecution. The court noted that the victim's father had approached the Panchayat before lodging the FIR, and that this was a common practice in such cases. 4. The court held that the appellant's defense of consent was not valid because the victim was only 13 years old at the time of the incident. The court noted that the age of consent in India is 16 years.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld his conviction under Section 376 of the IPC.
( 1 ) JUDGMENT :- Through this appeal u/s. 374 (2), Cr. P. C. , appellant Pappu calls in question the judgment of the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities on Women) Sri Ganganagar dt. 16-1-98, whereby he was convicted u/s. 376, IPC and sentenced to 7 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default two months S. I.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are these. The incident is of dt. 16-8-92. At about 1. 30 p. m. "s" (P. W. 1), 13 years, was in the field of her uncle Om Prakash for cutting grass. While she was doing her work, it is alleged, the accused went there, caught hold of her flung her on the ground and committed rape on her at pistol point. Om Prakash, (P. W. 3) happened to reach there and on his call the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged by Kalu Ram, father of "s" on 17-8-92 at 7 p. m. on which a case u/s. 376, IPC was registered. During investigation the police got "s" medically examined, inspected the site and interrogated the witnesses. After the completion of the investigation a challan was filed.
( 3 ) THE learned Special Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge u/s. 376, IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P. W. 1", P. W. 2 Kalu Ram, P. W. 3 Om Prakash, P. W. 4. Dr. Rajendrakumar Gupta, P. W. 5 Jivraj Singh, P. W. 6 Chetram, P. W. 7 Narpat Singh and P. W. 8 Dr. Om Prakash Sharma. The accused in his statement u/s. 313, Cr. P. C. denied accusation. He did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Judge of the trial Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties held that the charge against the accused was fully established. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
( 4 ) MR. Joshi learned counsel for the appellant contended that the F. I. R. was lodged more than 24 hrs. after the occurrence and this delay shows that no occurrence had taken place. His further contended was that the medical evidence does not corroborate the testimony of "s". He also contended that looking to the age of the prosecutrix, it might be a case of consent. He also pointed out that the link evidence of sending the clothes to F. S. L. has not been produced. Relying on the case of Bherun Lal v. State of Raj, 1995 Cr LR (Raj) 371, he contended that the accused should be acquitted.
( 5 ) LEARNED P. P. , on the other hand, supported the judgment of the trial Court.
( 6 ) I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. P. W. 1" deposes that at about 1. 30 p. m. when she was cutting grass, the accused went there, flung her on the ground and after removing his clothes committed rape on her. She also says that the accused who was having a pistol in his hand had told him that if she made a noise he would kill her. She then says that as her uncle Om Prakash reached the place of occurrence, the accused ran away.
( 7 ) THERE is nothing in the cross-examination of "s" as to disbelieve her. She was about 14 years of age. There could not be any cause for her to level false accusation against the accused. A suggestion put in her cross-examination that her parents wanted to take revenge from the accused has been emphatically denied by "s" Kalu Ram, (P. W. 2) also emphatically denies that he was having enmity with the father of the accused and he has brought false accusation against him at the instance of Har Chand, Ex. M. L. A. The accused has not led any evidence in support of his plea that there was enmity between his father and Kalu Ram or that Har Chand, Ex. M. L. A. was interested in getting him involved in a false case. That being so, it has to be held that there was no cause for "s" or her father to bring a false case and that too of rape allegation against the accused.
( 8 ) IT cannot be believed that a father would expose his unmarried daughter by making false allegation against the accused. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
